Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Osama vs. PETA

Another Gem from LGF!Osama Bin Laden back in 2002 said (in a letter of “grievance” to the United States) that one of the causes of Islam attacking America is we hadn’t signed the Kyoto treaty.For those who are watchers of the show Friends and listen to shock jocks, Kyoto is a United Nation document that is geared towards cutting emissions from countries in the hope to curb Global Warming.I guess The Islamicists are incorporating modern science into the Sharia law after all!

John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain’s Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

“You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries,” al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 “letter to the American people.”

If people are willing to take down buildings for the sake of cutting emissions of my car so we can get the earth to possibly not heat up a half-degree more than usual, I think they should be honorary members of Greenpeace, PETA, and others:

Pipe bombs are set off outside the headquarters of pharmaceutical company Chiron Corp. first at 2:55 a.m. and then at 4 a.m. Damage is limited to a few broken windows. Police spend the morning securing the site where approximately 2,000 employees work. A bomb squad detonated a suspicious package, but it is found to not be an explosive. Responsibility for the attack is claimed the next day by the “Animal Liberation Brigade”—believed to be a cell of the Animal Liberation Front. It is stated in a communiqué issued to other animal rights organizations that Chiron was targeted because of its ties to drug tester Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). It warns Chiron that, "This is the endgame for the animal killers and if you choose to stand with them [HLS] you will be dealt with accordingly. There will be no quarter given, no more half measures taken. You might be able to protect your buildings, but can you protect the homes of every employee?"

Wes Clark made some stupid nutball conspiracy theory remark that has the Jewish people in control of our Government.I swear this kind of stuff is frustrating!At least the left-leaning publication is catching on to it, I doubt the dudes at KOS are up in arms about anti-Semitism.In fact, they are probably applauding Wes Clark and have now made him their Presidential choice.

The gentleman you will see mentioned below, Matt Yglesias, is a popular American political blogger and a prominent voice on the liberal blogosphere, even writing for the New York Times Magazine.But much of the “liberal” blogosphere is virulently anti-semetic, with KOS’s leading the way.

I've admired Wes Clark for a long time. But his comments to Ariana Huffington about wealthy Jews pushing the country toward war with Iran strike me as nutty and disturbing. Either I seriously misjudged the man, or his comments were misquoted or taken wildly out of context…. Matthew Yglesias, however, thinks Clark's comments are perfectly spot-on. Indeed, he says they're not just correct but obviously so. As he writes, "Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true." …. The disturbing thing about Clark's comments is his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war. It's his belief that we will go to war because they desire it. Here is how Huffington described her conversation with Clark:

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Again, the context here may be muddled, but it seems that Clark is saying he's sure the United States is going to bomb Iran because rich Jews are pushing for it.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Global Warming -- Not!!

I have to post this article from the Houston Chronicle, it is a continuing answer to you “global warming” freaks.Enjoy… I linked the whole article.

The reason I say “continuing” is because unlike the conspiracy theories, say… with… the Twin Towers being demolished by the U. S. Government, I can show (with evidence) that the towers fell under conditions caused by a terrorist attack.

Usually people bring up Tower 7 as their proof, once I disprove this premise there isn’t any other counter evidence.But unlike those crazy conspiracy theories, Global Warming has a myriad of “proofs.”They are still disprovable, but the people who believe them have new “evidences” almost daily.The latest that was presented to me was the heat wave in New York.But the temperatures there didn’t get any wilder than the heat wave in 1930.

So I will “continually” post article that I find interesting so my readers can always keep up to date with the skepticism of GW (global warming).

…..

…..Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Sunday, January 21, 2007

My Main Premise: Science, with a philosophical naturalist presupposition isnt science, it is faith.

I will elucidate: The following interview was held with Dean Kenyon, the professor of biology at the University of San Francisco, who was for many years a staunch evolutionist, wrote the book Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill, 1969), which was the best-selling advanced level university textbook on chemical evolution during the decade of the 70s. One of Dean Kenyons students gave him a copy of a book written by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who holds three earned doctorates) entitled The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. In this book by Dr. Wilder, Dr. Kenyons book is critiqued.

Instead of Kenyon saying Well, Dr. Wilder is just a creationist, who would listen to him? Dr. Kenyon read the book and tried to answer the arguments in it against his own book. When he couldnt, he began to investigate where the evidence led to. It ended up leading outside of his previously held naturalistic presuppositions commonly known as evolution.

One of the questions asked of Dr. Kenyon in the before mentioned interview was: What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life? Dr. Kenyon responded:

Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process.

The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.

Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment.

If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but your going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.

(The logically rational, and hence scientific way to look at origins is to say what Kenyon just did life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.) This is what the fervor was over in Kansas a few years back. The Kansas School Board, while leaving microevolutionary teaching mandatory, did - however - make the teaching of macroevolution optional for the local districts discretion (e.g., let the elected officials represent what the parents want... this is called choice folks!); the part that caused the biggest stir was changing one word in a definition. The original drafting commission defined science as:

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

The Kansas Board defined science as:

Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (i.e., scientism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism whatever you want to call it it is still a metaphysical position as it assumes or presumes certain things about the entire universe).

This is what caused Richard Lewontin to plainly state (Dr. Lewontin is a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University):

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Plain and simple, this is not science, but a philosophical/metaphysical paradigm. I will illustrate with another example. The Miller experiment which was proposed on the basis of a hypothetical atmosphere has been disproven by the evidence that the early atmosphere was not reducing. Unfortunately, like many other doctrines, it too still graces our universities and textbooks as being experimentally sound. This study is still cited not for empirical (evidential) reasons; but rather, for methodological necessity. In other words:

If molecular oxygen had been present (even a tenth-of-one-percent of todays percentage), then chemical evolution could not have happened. Therefore, molecular oxygen must have been absent; because we know that chemical evolution happened.

Another way to explain this obvious philosophical outlook that dresses itself in drag/science is that of a conversation between a professor and his student:

Professor: Miracles are impossible Papa_Giorgio, dont you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them [i.e., answered prayer, a man being raised from the dead, Noahs Ark, and the like].

Student: for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us?

Professor: Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.

Student: Wouldnt you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be and event in nature caused by something outside of nature?

Professor: Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of miracle.

Student: But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism whatever you wish to call it], you are forced to conclude that miracles are impossible

So an honest atheist [or, philosophical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical &/or presuppositional (presuppose: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance) and not rationally or logically defensible. Plato was right when he said atheism is a disease of the soul before [a priori] it is an error of the mind.

Another example, in syllogistic form, is in order. The atheist can be shown that his starting point presupposition interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.

Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,

Conclusion: there is no God.

(Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R [1986], p. 57.)

It is quite comical that people ask for evidence, and I give them many, however they still (a priori) reject it because they are committed to a philosophy of life (e.g., a worldview) that states that this evidence is invalid. I wish to end with a quote I often use; it is from Scott Todd, a Kansas State University immunologist:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic